Source Auditing

Marian Soldier Case

A historical argument treats the story of the Marian soldier as straightforward evidence for a broad category of Roman sexual behavior. What should you check? → Determine whether the evidence has been placed in the correct conceptual category and interpreted within its historical context rather than assuming that the modern category being applied accurately describes the ancient case.

Richlin "Hostile Sources" Case

A creator quotes a scholar's statement about "hostile sources" but uses the quotation to support a broader conclusion than the scholar's surrounding discussion appears to justify. What should you check? → Read the quotation in its original context and separate what the scholar directly says from the larger interpretation being built from it.

Lex Scantinia Case

Several scholarly citations appear to agree about what the Lex Scantinia prohibited, but closer inspection shows narrower claims, qualifications, inaccessible evidence, and scholarly disagreement. What should you conclude? → Trace the provenance of each claim, verify what each scholar actually says, determine the historical scope of the evidence, and calibrate confidence rather than treating the citation count as automatic consensus.

Quintilian–MacMullen Case

A modern work attributes strong wording to an ancient text, but checking the underlying text suggests that the wording entered through an intermediary scholar and was later repeated as though it came directly from the ancient source. What went wrong? → The sources are dependent through a chain of transmission, so the later citation does not independently verify the wording. Trace the claim back through the intermediary to the underlying source.

Caesar Case

Several ancient reports, later interpretations, and rumors about Caesar are combined into one confident description of his behavior even though the individual pieces of evidence differ in origin and reliability. What should you do? → Keep the sources and claims separate, determine which evidence independently supports which proposition, and reduce confidence where the combined narrative goes beyond what the individual sources establish.

Musonius Rufus Case

A moral philosopher condemns a particular behavior, and someone uses this statement to claim that Roman society generally held the same attitude. What is the main problem? → The philosopher's prescription may not be representative of the wider population. Distinguish normative evidence about what one author thought people ought to do from evidence of what Romans generally believed or practiced.

Tacitus / Germania Case

A statement from Tacitus is treated as a transparent factual description of an entire people's behavior without considering the kind of work Germania is, Tacitus's purposes, or the interpretation of its terminology. What should you check? → Apply genre criticism and contextualization before treating the passage as straightforward descriptive evidence, and avoid conclusions broader than the source can support.

Pompeian Graffiti Case

A short piece of graffiti can plausibly be interpreted in more than one way, but an argument presents one interpretation as unquestionably established. What is the appropriate response? → Preserve the competing interpretations, examine the linguistic and historical context, and calibrate confidence to the ambiguity instead of presenting an uncertain reading as a settled fact.